Download Biodiversity Adaptation to Climate change in the ECA region. A

Nicola Cenacchi
Draft, June 2008
Biodiversity Adaptation to Climate change in the
ECA region.
A contribute to the Umbrella Report on adaptation to
climate change in ECA
1
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 GENERAL CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECTS ON BIODIVERSITY IN ECA....................................................................... 3
1.1.1 Biodiversity in ECA ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1.2 Changing averages – range shift, extinctions, phenology ......................................................................... 7
1.1.3 Extreme events- droughts, floods............................................................................................................... 7
2. ADAPTATION FOR BIODIVERSITY ............................................................................................................... 9
2.1 FRAMING THE BIODIVERSITY QUESTION ............................................................................................................. 9
2.2 REGIONAL AND GLOBAL ADAPTATION EFFORTS .............................................................................................. 12
2.2.1 Protected areas........................................................................................................................................ 12
2.2.2 Adaptation should hinge on a landscape approach................................................................................. 13
3. ADAPTATIONS BY BIOME ............................................................................................................................. 16
3.1 GRASSLANDS ................................................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 FORESTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.1 Temperate and Mediterranean forests..................................................................................................... 20
3.2.2 Boreal forests .......................................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.3 On adaptation practices .......................................................................................................................... 21
3.3 ALPINE/MONTANE ECOSYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................... 22
3.4 ARCTIC ECOSYSTEMS ....................................................................................................................................... 23
3.5 FRESHWATER AREAS ........................................................................................................................................ 24
4. CONCLUSION – CHALLENGES FOR ADAPTIVE CAPACITY IN ECA ................................................. 28
5. REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................... 29
2
1. Introduction
1.1 General climate change effects on Biodiversity in ECA
1.1.1 Biodiversity in ECA
Because of its vast expanse, the ECA region “includes the world’s largest contiguous steppe and
intact forest ecosystems….. and 21 mountain chains” (Brylski and Abdulin 2003), it spans over
nine major biomes (out of a total of 151) and contains nearly 100 different ecoregions (Figure 1).
It contains 26 of the WWF global 200 priority areas (i.e. 13% of the total; Figure 2), and it
includes parts or the total of three biodiversity hotspots regions: the Mediterranean basin, the
Caucasus and the Mountains of Central Asia (BOX 1).
Biodiversity is the source of ecosystem goods and services. These services (Figure 3) are not
determined by the shear richness in species, but rather they depend on species composition, on
the functional elements of an ecosystem. In providing services some species have a more critical
role than others; some species may be substituted because functionally redundant (a trait that
informs of the resiliency of an ecosystem), and local extinctions do more harm when they wipe
out or seriously damage an entire functional guild.
Given that climate change, both in terms of changing climatic averages and extreme events, will
have different impacts on ecosystems within ECA, it is critical to understand better what the
effects may be, and what solutions could be chosen to reduce the magnitude of the impacts.
BOX 1 Hotspots and Priority areas
The WWF 200 Global priority areas are a set of ecoregions chosen as the areas where conservation efforts and
resources should be concentrated. The rationale behind the choice resides in the high level of species richness and
endemism of these ecoregions; also, they are chosen as representative of the world’s biomes on different continents
or ocean basins (Olson and Dinerstein 2002)
Hotspots are areas “featuring exceptional concentrations of endemic species and experiencing exceptional loss of
habitat” (Myers et al. 2000). The focus on these hotspots has been identified by conservationists as another
approach to stop the high rates of extinction.
1
The only Biomes not represented are the tropical biomes and mangroves .
3
Figure 1. Major Biomes and Ecoregions in ECA
4
Figure 2. WWF Global 200 priority areas
5
Figure 3. ecosystem services, relation with biodiversity and interaction
with global changes
Source: Millenium ecosystem assessment
6
1.1.2 Changing averages – range shift, extinctions, phenology
The IPCC 4th assessment report project that climate change is likely to put at risk 50% of the
biodiversity of all Asia (Cruz et al. 2007) . Average annual temperatures are expected to
increase up to between 1.6º and 2.6º degrees by 2050 (see Climate Science Section2), with most
of the warming taking place in the winter for the north and eastern parts of ECA, and in the
summer for the southern regions (see Figure 9 & 10 Climate Science Section).
The first impact of these changes will be a modification of species’ ranges (and therefore of
ecosystems’ location). The boreal forest and taiga are projected to extend further north;
temperate grasslands and coniferous forests may expand their range, while both the tundra and
the polar deserts will shrink. Along with evidence for the reduction of ice cover in the arctic sea,
there is sufficient agreement that permafrost will keep on thawing leading to subsidence in
coastal areas (Cruz et al. 2007). This, in combination with sea level rise will accelerate coastal
erosion in the Arctic Circle and threaten especially coastal wetlands.
In general terms, warming will produce a shift of both flora and fauna to higher latitudes and
altitudes, although the precise changes in terms of community composition is uncertain, as it is
also dependent on species interactions. Species’ shifts have been already documented around the
Mediterranean, in Scandinavia, in part of the Carpathians and in the Urals (Alcamo et al. 2007).
However, some species and ecosystems, namely those that already occupy the most extreme
areas in the alpine (altitude) or arctic regions (latitude), will have nowhere to go (i.e. no real
adaptation option) and are under a serious threat of disappearing. The breeding habitats of
several migratory birds in the arctic are going to be exposed to drastic changes (or they will
disappear altogether) and the consequences are at the moment unpredictable. It is hypothesized
that climate change will increase the general extinction rates, therefore aggravating the global
biodiversity loss crisis. As species push northward, warmer and wetter conditions are also
expected to create more opportunities for invasive species to expand their range (Reid 2006,
Alcamo et al. 2007) .
Climatic changing averages are also going to modify the phenology3 of several species. This
may generate mismatches between species and interfere with interactions such as predation,
pollination and diseases (Reid 2006).
1.1.3 Extreme events- droughts, floods
Extreme events have also the potential to negatively affect biodiversity. Higher temperatures
have prompted concern about increasing intensity and frequency of forest fires. The Palmer
drought index for the last two decades has shown increasing drought conditions across most of
ECA (see Figure 4 Climate Science Section). The GCM projections allow to project worsening
drought conditions in southern areas across ECA, due to a combination of temperature increase
and a decrease in mean annual rainfall (see Figure 13 & 18 Climate Science section). For the
2
For this variable there is complete concordance between the models
In ecology phenology refers to the timing of seasonal phenomena (e.g. the phenology of a species could be from
april to september)
3
7
northern and eastern areas projections of drought are more complicated due to a combination of
warmer and wetter4 conditions, with mean annual rainfall possibly reaching + 10% (see Climate
Science Section).
The sum of current evidence and model predictions indicate that the most vulnerable areas are
going to be the ones that will experience the stronger climatic variations, therefore, the far north
and south areas of ECA and the mountainous regions.
4
This is projected particularly for the north-eastern areas, therefore with exclusion of southern europe, tajikistan,
the caucasus and around the black sea basin (see Figure 13 Climate Science Section).
8
2. Adaptation for Biodiversity
2.1 Framing the biodiversity question
Species, communities, habitats and ecosystems will undergo modifications as a result of climatic
changes. Some species will be able to adapt to climate change by shifting their ranges, while
others, particularly those specialized to living in a narrow range of extreme environmental
conditions will be exposed to a much higher extinction risk.
As species and ecosystems change and shift, so do the goods and services they offer. The
intensity and location of valued services may change, or they may disappear altogether, with
consequences for human welfare. These phenomena bring about a reallocation of resources,
with some regions possibly losing out while some gain new opportunities.
An example can be used to further clarify the issue. Some insects, in particular honeybees,
provide an ecosystem service critical both to wildlife and to human sustenance: pollination.
The increase in temperature may modify environmental conditions and force pollinators to
migrate to higher latitudes and altitudes in order to survive5. The capacity of these organisms for
autonomous adaptation (i.e. range shift) is dependent on their biology (e.g. physiology and
motility), but also on the characteristics of the surrounding vegetational landscape. Presence of
the right vegetative matrix, with refugia and corridors allowing the insects to spread, feed and
reproduce, is needed for autonomous adaptation6. On the contrary, a barren wasteland
interposed between the original location and the new preferred site would represent a serious
threat, and may result in the loss of an entire population. Hence, the first aspect of biodiversity
adaptation consists in understanding how to protect the resilience of natural systems, i.e. how to
foster those conditions that allow species and ecosystems to adapt autonomously.
Migration of pollinators may also entail a relocation of some pollination services, and as a result
some agricultural areas may experience a reduction in production; human societies will need to
adapt to those changes that affect their wellbeing through impacts on biodiversity and the
ecosystem services it supports. The issue here is about how we can modify our standard
operations and reduce the vulnerability of sectors like agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, tourism
etc to changes occurring in critical ecosystem services.
If we consider a hypothetic ecosystem, exposure to climate change events can result in the
following categories of negative impacts:
A. Loss of biodiversity (damage from the existence value point of view – biodiversity intrinsic
value)
B. Reduction or failure of ecosystem goods and services in a specific area because of habitat
loss and biodiversity reduction (Biodiversity has failed to adapt)
5
According to recent analysis climate change may anticipate the time of flowering, with a resulting disruption of the
synchronization between pollinators emergence (according to their life cycle) and the flowering of plant.
6
The effects of temperature change can also be very fast and reduce fitness of a pollinator species before any
effective adaptation mechanism has the chance to set in.
9
C. Reduction and loss of environmental goods and services due to migration of ecosystems
(shift and replacement).
BOX 2. Values of Biodiversity
The rationale for nature conservation builds on three main values assigned to biodiversity: direct use value
(including option value), indirect use value, and ethical (or existence) value.
Existence value: This refers to the inherent value of all living organisms, and appeals to man’ stewardship role
toward the
Direct use value: Biodiversity offers an infinite array of goods and raw materials for human self-sustenance. In
addition most of the chemicals used either in industry and in medicine are derived from plants and animals. Loss of
biodiversity translates into a reduction of future opportunities for new discoveries that could benefit medical
research or industrial development (loss of the option value).
Indirect use value: indirect use values arise from biodiversity as the basis of environmental services.
This report will focus primarily on the two closely related scenarios A and B. C is implicit in
other sections included in the umbrella report.
Scenario A represents the threat to the intrinsic existence value of biodiversity, while scenario B
centers on the option value of Biodiversity (BOX 2). In the context of both scenarios, the main
adaptation option consists in reducing the vulnerability of the system by tackling those stressors
that undermine the capacity for autonomous adaptation of species and ecosystems. Possible
strategies are:
1. Actions to reduce impacts of other threats and improve resilience (Figure 4)
a. Control habitat loss
b. Reduce habitat fragmentation and increase connectivity
c. Maintain metapopulations
d. Reinforce monitoring
e. Reduce pollution
f. Promote genetic diversity
g. Control the spread of exotic species
2. Expand reserves and change approach to biodiversity conservation (Policy and technical
interventions)
3. Planning based on future scenarios (Policy and technical interventions)
4. Technological options (e.g. conservation in seed banks)
In general, conservationists consider the first three options as preferable, while maintaining that
the fourth one should be limited to especially dramatic situations. The ECA region hosts many
of the wild relatives of key crop species. Because of their critical value, a technological option
(e.g. conservation in seed banks) may turn out to be necessary. Resorting to this solution may
have also some drawbacks; extracting these species from their environment means exempting
them from selection pressure (i.e. no evolution), which may result in their being unfit for future
climatic conditions (i.e. we are increasing the long-term sensitivity and overall vulnerability of
these species to climatic changes). On the other hand it has to be kept in mind that the genetic
10
pool of a species population contains an evolutionary potential, due to the variability (mutations)
contained within the genetic information of different individuals of the same species. In other
words, subtracting a species from selective pressure does not instantaneously erase the potential
of that species to evolve and adapt to different environmental conditions. Therefore this kind of
technological options may be legitimate, albeit not always feasible.
Figure 4. Ecosystem management in the face of climatic change and
uncertainty.
The core of the strategy consists in anticipatory adaptation practices that aim
at improving the resilience of the natural systems; this enables them to
autonomously adapt to climate change.
In summary given the different values of biodiversity (existence, option and basis for ecosystem
services) and the possible impacts, we may need and want to:
1. Make sure that biodiversity can autonomously adapt, and intervene to favor this adaptation
by counteracting maladaptation situations [Intrinsic existence value of biodiversity].
2. Influence the “direction and timing of this autonomous adaptation” (Spittlehouse and
Stewart 2003), possibly to buy time and prepare better for (3) [Option value of Biodiversity
+ Biodiversity as foundation of ecosystem goods and services]
3. Adapt our operations and socio-economic conditions to the changes that are affecting
biodiversity and its goods and services [Biodiversity as foundation of ecosystem goods and
services]
Given that changes will indeed happen, we may have the ability to influence the magnitude of
these changes in some locations, while in others we will need to focus the adaptation on
ourselves and cope with the results of changes.
11
2.2 Regional and Global adaptation efforts
The adaptation process should aim at diversifying options as much as possible. The two key
lines of intervention are the intensification of conservation efforts, with a strong focus on
protected areas and connectivity, and the minimization of non CC-related stresses, like
pollution, over-harvesting, and land use changes leading to habitat destruction and
fragmentation (Table 1).
2.2.1 Protected areas
Protected areas are still at the core of biodiversity conservation and have been found to be an
adequate response to the threat of climate change (Hannah 2007a). However, as habitat ranges
shift and the distribution of species changes, the efficiency of protected areas is questioned. The
problem is that these areas have been built under the assumption of an unchanging climate and
often shaped by a combination of scientific and political compromises; furthermore they have
been more and more isolated by habitat destruction.
Ideally the number of protected areas should be extended with the purpose of covering both
current and future species’ ranges. In order to achieve this several systems are available,
including computer algorithm to maximize the conservation value and cost-effectiveness of
protected areas (Hannah 2007b). The selection process would need to be combined with models
of species-range migration obtained through bioclimatic models (BOX 3). Also empirical data
would be necessary to hone the process, which is why monitoring is of particular importance in
this context. In fact, it is likely that climate change will modify the relevance of different
protected areas for conservation. Some species may move out of protected areas, which at
present hold high relevance for biodiversity conservation. Conversely, some areas with low
current value, may gain interest as species move into their areas.
Furthermore, also management of protected areas needs to be improved, particularly toward
tackling effectively the current threats. This approach should focus on threats like fire
management, flood regime, spread of exotic species, pollution. Successfully curbing these
threats now, before their impact may increase under climate change conditions, means saving
resources for the future, therefore allowing to deal specifically with shifts in species ranges.
12
BOX 3. Bioclimatic models
Ideally the design of protected areas should be informed by bioclimatic modeling, i.e. modeling
of the range shifts of species. Regional modeling of biodiversity responses (including magnitude
and direction of change) is necessary, as the resolution of global model is not useful for
conservation of biodiversity (Hannah et al. 2002).
One of the problems faced by models is how to test their predictive ability; obviously there are
no future data to test the predicted distribution of species in relation with climate change. One of
the solutions has been to make use of past data of climate and species distribution (Araujo and
Rahbek 2006). This type of data is hard to find, which is why testing of models is restricted to
few regions and few species within them. In ECA, there is a large amount of un-tapped historic
data that may be extremely useful. The “Chronicles of Nature” is a report series, an official
document produced in each of the about 200 protected areas of Russia, recording past changes
in the distribution of species (both flora and fauna) (Andrey Kynic, World Bank staff, personal
communication). At present the material is only in paper format, which is one of the reasons
why it has not been used so far. Now, due to the interest for climate change, there could be
reason for a GEF financed program that would track and recover all of this material and use it to
support regional biomodeling and predict future changes (It is worth it to check whether this
kind of documents are present in other regions.)
2.2.2 Adaptation should hinge on a landscape approach
Single, isolated protected areas have relatively low value for adaptation. The preferred tool
consists in networks of protected areas, shielded by buffer zones and connected through
vegetational corridors, which are critical to allow species’ migration along altitudes and
latitudes gradients (Price and Neville 2003). For these networks to be effective in safeguarding
species and climatic refugia, while conserving entire habitats and ecosystems’ functions, they
need to have a landscape-regional approach:
1. The networks’ corridors and buffer zones must be preserved across political boundaries
(BOX 4).
2. Biodiversity conservation should be fostered across anthropic landscapes; areas
characterized by human activities, being it agriculture or else should have corridors and
stepping stones to allow movement of species across them.
13
BOX 4 Useful Definitions
Buffer zone: an area of land surrounding a protected area designed with the double purpose of benefiting local
populations while providing an additional level of protection to the conservation area. These areas are intended for
both conservation and development. Activities like research and education, tourism and recreation are fostered,
while other activities like logging, mining and constructions are generally prohibited.
Corridors: typically these indicate landscape vegetational structures that facilitate the migration of both animal and
vegetal species, or allow exchange of individuals between distant population, therefore reducing the change of
genetic isolation.
Stepping stones: corridors are large swaths of uninterrupted land. However it is often difficult to acquire and protect
a large extent of adjoining land. Stepping stones are smaller disconnected areas or protected habitat that have been
tested to facilitate movement of animals, including insects, birds and large mammals.
The EU Natura 2000 network of protected areas is an example of this landscape approach (or
Bioregional approach) and may be used as a model (BOX 5). The network covers all member
states, and does not aim to exclude all human activities; it includes both nature reserves and
privately owned land where activities such as extensive agriculture or pasture are allowed, and
managed according to sustainable practices (European_Commission 2005). This links with point
4 in table 2, i.e. the necessity to involve local people in the management of these areas; the
success of this approach also depends on the improvement of locals’ livelihoods by decreasing
their dependence on natural resources (Price and Neville 2003).
BOX 5 The Natura 2000 Network
The Natura 2000 network is the EU key conservation measure, based on the Birds Directive and Habitat directive,
and it provides a tool to adapt to CC. It is a network of 26.000 protected areas covering all member states and a
total area of 850.000 Km2, more than 20% of the EU territory. It is up to the Member State to ensure that within
each Natura 2000 site no activity takes place that could disturb species and habitats of interest, and that measures
are taken to actively manage the sites.
The sites should also be protected from new developments or major land-use changes “unless these developments
are of over-riding public interest” (European_Commission 2005)
The UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves is an example of the extension of the
landscape approach to the global scale. Differently from national protected areas, this network
spans across national boundaries. Examples within ECA are the biosphere reserve at the
southwestern end of the Tien Shan Mountains, and the Carpathians.
14
Table 1. Categories of adaptation options.
General Adaptation options
Notes
1. Protected areas
2. Conservation networks
3. Bioregional approaches
4. Participation in management
5. Monitoring
6. Supporting policies
7. Minimize non-CC related stresses
a) Identify ecosystem, species and processes particularly
sensitive to CC.
b) Design areas to protect species, habitat, ecosystems,
landscapes and climatic refugia.
c) Evaluate and improve the management and monitoring
capabilities
• A network of protected areas endowed with buffer zones and
connected through corridors that allow species to move along
different altitudes and latitudes.
• Stepping stones and landscape management to allow
movement through mostly-anthropogenic landscapes
• A network of protected areas covering and crossing political
boundaries (e.g. the EU Natura 2000 Network) to allow more
protection on species movement and preserve functions of
large ecosystems.
• Involve local people in the management of protected areas
• Improve locals’ livelihoods by decreasing their dependence
on natural resources.
• Key element of any adaptive management
• GLORIA – Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine
environments. This is a long-term observation network to
detect effects of CC.
• Underpinning of any adaptation strategy: policies and plans
for specific geographical areas, for sectors and agencies.
Includes legal provision and economic instruments
• This is a landscape-level prescription, and applies also to
protected areas (1) : minimize pollution, control exotic species,
minimize pressures from land-use changes, development and
tourism.
The right knowledge, infrastructure and personnel are necessary to sustain successfully
adaptation measures, and economic and legal incentives are critical to assure support to the
landscape approach and to implement targeted measures (e.g. improve protected areas). For
instance, economic incentives from payment schemes for ecosystem services, in Costa Rica,
Ecuador and elsewhere were able to extend stewardship of private lands outside and between
protected areas, therefore providing matrix links between components of a conservation network
(Price and Neville 2003). The success of these landscape-scale conservation strategies requires
ling-time support in terms of education and legal instruments (laws and institutions).
At the single protected area scale, eco-tourism is a source of funds that should be directed both
at increasing the area under protection, and improving management, with particular emphasis on
monitoring practices. Monitoring is essential both to confirm predicted range shifts and biotic
modification, and to identify unexpected changes (Hannah 2007b).
15
3. Adaptations by Biome
CI Hotspots and WWF Global 200 priority areas in ECA span a wide range of climatic zones
and ecoregions. They have conservation priority status, indicating that they are either under a
particular risk of extinction from anthropic pressures, and/or they are species rich and at high
level of endemism. These ecosystems already face great stresses in the form of habitat
destruction and fragmentation, pollution and invasive species, and climate change is likely to
exacerbate these stresses. Therefore, it is important to analyze the challenges brought by
climatic changes and the possible synergy between these and current hazards.
Table 2 shows adaptation options organized by biome and referred to these areas; the table
intends to serve as a reference for the following sections.
The climate change projections I will refer to are taken from the Climate Science Section of the
Umbrella Report.
Table 2. Biomes, areas of high conservation interest and adaptation measures.
Biome
Global 200 Priority Areas
and CI Hotspots in ECA
Anticipatory Planned Adaptation
Alpine/Montane
ecosystems
(They include Temperate
coniferous forests and also
some montane grasslands
and shrublands)
• Carpathian montane forests (22)
• Altai-Sayan montane coniferous
forests (21,25) §
• Altai-Sayan alpine meadows and
tundra (55,59) §
• Khangai Mountains alpine
meadow (56)
• Tian Shan montane conifer
forests (26) †
• Ural montane forests and tundra
(35)
• Minimize all non-climate related threats
(habitat destruction/fragmentation, pollution
etc).
• Promote the establishment of protected
areas and protected networks.
• Promote the participation of local people in
conservation by improving their livelihoods.
• Monitor and actively control the introduction
and spread of exotic species.
Temperate broadleaf,
mixed or coniferous
forests
• Caucasus Anatolian Hyrcanian
temperate forests (3,6,10,24) ∫ .
• Ussuri broadleaf and mixed
forests (16) [Russian Far East
broadleaf and mixed forests
priority area]
• East siberian taiga (27) [Central
and Eastern Siberian taiga
priority area]
• Kamchatka taiga (28,29)
• East Adriatic coast, Greece,
Turkey and East Mediterraneansouth Anatolian coasts (74-79) ¶
• Control current threats, particularly
degradation, fragmentation and exotic
species.
• Modify protected areas to take CC-induced
shifts into consideration, and to increase
connectivity.
• Change management of forests to larger
biogeographic scales, including an
increased control over buffer zones.
• Make sure all habitat types are represented
in the protected areas and protect mature
and old growth stands.
• Sayan intermontane steppe (49)
§
• Alai-Western Tian Shan steppe
(37) †
• Monitor and control the spread of exotic
species through roads
• Regulate the unsustainable grazing (e.g. in
the Daurian steppe)
Boreal Forests/Taiga
Mediterranean Forests
woodlands and shrub
Temperate Grasslands
and steppe
16
To promote Autonomous Adaptation
Anticipatory Planned Adaptation
• Gissaro-Alai open woodlands
(43) †
• Tian Shan foothill arid steppe
(52) †
• Daurian forest steppe (40)
• Promote connectivity to prevent
fragmentation during migration processes.
Arctic ecosystems
(including tundra)
• Kamchatcka mountain and forest
tundra (65)
• Chukchi peninsula tundra (64)
• Kola peninsula tundra (66)
[Fenno Scandia alpine tundra
and taiga]
• Northeast Siberian coastal
tundra (67) [Taimyr and Russian
coastal tundra]
• Habitat protection.
• Reduction of non-climatic stresses
(pollution, overharvesting)
• Monitoring and regulation of tourism.
• Monitoring and control of invasive species
• Implementation of the WWF “Conservation
First” principle.
Freshwater areas
•
•
•
•
•
• Protect a variety of potential habitats,
including thermal refugia.
• Protect water flow and hydrological
characteristics
• Protect habitat connectivity between rivers,
lakes and wetlands
• Control spread of exotic species
Volga river delta
Danube river delta
Lena river Delta
Balkan rivers and streams
Russian far East Rivers and
Wetlands
• Lake Baikal
* Name of the priority areas is supplemented with numbers identifying the relative ecoregion as of Figure 2
(introduction)
§ Part of the Altai-Sayan priority area
¶ Part of the Mediterranean basin CI hotspot
† Part of the Middle Asian montane woodlands and steppe priority area (also a CI hotspot)
∫ Also a CI Hotspot
17
3.1 Grasslands
Based on the projections presented in the Climate Science Section7, the grasslands listed in table
2 will experience an increase in mean annual temperatures and annual rainfall, along with an
increase in heatwave duration and a decrease in the number of frost days. The increase in
temperature and in rainfall are particularly relevant as they can modify the fire regime, a key
determinant of grasslands’ species composition (Gelbard 2003). As a result rare species and
native grasses and shrubs could be lost; moreover the heightened productivity and seed
germinability due to increased rainfall, could promote the spread of exotic species, which will
further threat the permanence of local species (BOX 3). In a self-perpetuating process, exotic
species may then drive further modifications of the fire regime, hence reinforcing their own
proliferation.
This indicates that a key adaptation strategy to protect the resilience of grasslands consists in
controlling the spread of exotic species. Because roads represent the first routes of introduction,
a possible measure is to monitor roadside vegetation. Although new roads are critical to the
socio-economic development of a country, when possible they should be limited in hotspots and
biodiversity priority areas because they open access to exotics, while also causing land
fragmentation and thus reducing the ability of local species to move.
Herbivory is another major factor to determine the composition of grasslands. In order to protect
the resilience of grasslands species to climatic changes, migration of wild grazers should be
monitored, and special care should be taken not to modify the livestock-grazing regime in areas
already exposed to this activity (Gelbard 2003). The Daurian steppe (table 2) contains rare plant
species and it is currently exposed to “unregulated road construction and unsustainable grazing
practices” (www.eoearth.org/article/Daurian_forest_steppe). Both factors are potentially
disastrous in respect to maintaining resiliency to climate change and need to be addressed
urgently as an initial adaptation measure.
As mentioned in the Introduction chapter, ecosystems are likely to shift northward due to the
increase in temperature. Research should be conducted on how to facilitate this process and
avoid an “environmental squeeze”; this may happen when species find a barrier to their
migration in anthropic landscapes and are unable to cross them. For instance on the north of the
central Asia steppe lays a vast swat of land occupied by agriculture (Figure 5). Corridors or
stepping-stones should be studied to allow the southern grassland species to move into and
across this anthropic environment. Ideally governments should plan all of these measures in
collaboration with NGOs, land trusts and conservation organizations and local experts.
BOX 3 - Exotic species and climate change
Exotic species are expected to be a major problem in conjunction with climate change as they are usually
characterized by tolerance to a wide range of environmental conditions and disturbances, along with a rapid rate of
growth, seed production and dispersal (this is valid both for plants, pathogens or other organisms that could reach
the status of pests)
7
See particularly Figures 8, 11, 12 and 13
18
Figure 5. Land use classification in ECA. The steppe species in the south will need to transit through an
agricultural landscape (red areas) in their northward migration.
19
3.2 Forests
3.2.1 Temperate and Mediterranean forests
The Caucasus will be affected by higher temperatures and stronger rainfall events, but an overall
decrease in mean annual rainfall and an increase in the interval between rainfall events.
Southeastern Europe has trends similar in direction but greater in magnitude, with higher
temperatures and less rainfall.
This type of climate may exacerbate the wildfire regime already altered by fragmentation due to
logging, agriculture and settlements (Biringer 2003). The Caucasian and Mediterranean forests
and shrublands will likely face more frequent fires due to droughts and higher temperatures. The
Mediterranean maquis and woodlands are already permanently altered and continuously
threatened by agriculture, pasture, logging, fire and urbanization, while the Caucasian forests
(some of the most diverse forests) are threatened by logging, overgrazing, coastal development
and construction of dams. These impacts seriously reduce resilience to climate change, as
degraded and fragmented forests are more exposed to exotic species, insects and diseases
outbreaks, which are likely to increase as a result of warming, and are more vulnerable than
mature old growth forests to direct climate-related disturbances like droughts, extreme rainfall
events and windstorms (Biringer 2003). Furthermore, the high level of urbanization and
development, especially along the Mediterranean coasts, will likely hinder the migration
capability of the forest species.
The Ussuri mixed forests in the Russian Far East has a high level of endemism8, and hosts
endangered species like the Amur tiger and leopard, brown bears and rare birds species. The
climatic resilience of this priority area is threatened by stresses similar to those in the Caucasus
and Mediterranean: deforestation, conversion to agriculture, poaching, urbanization, mining, and
pollution
(http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/ecoregions/russian_fareast_temperate_fores
ts.cfm).
3.2.2 Boreal forests
The Taiga in the priority areas of Central and Eastern Siberia and in the peninsula of Katchatka.
will be impacted by temperatures rising of between 2 and 2.5º C, with greatest warming
happening in the winter months (Biringer 2003). Taiga species will migrate northward, toward
the pole, and they will be replaced by temperate forest at the lower latitudes. These changes
constitute general assumptions that do have a high level of uncertainty. On one side, depending
on the actual rate of warming, some forest species may have inadequate colonization rates due
to physiological characteristics, seed dispersal mechanisms and germination rate. Moreover, the
northern taiga soil may be suitable only to some migrating species. At the same time in the
southern latitudes forests will be affected by new pests and by old boreal pests whose growing
period will be extended because of the warming
8
Species endemic of a particular region are not naturally found elsewhere
20
In addition, the Eastern Siberian taiga faces external stresses that may reduce its resilience to
climate change. The main threats are represented by forest fires, intensive logging and poaching,
coal
mining
and
oil,
gas
and
hydroelectric
development
(http://www.eoearth.org/article/East_Siberian_taiga). Unfortunately only a small part of these
habitats are in protected areas, which are also very far apart one from the other, thus reducing
the connectivity level. Enlargement of this network could be a critical adaptation measure.
3.2.3 On adaptation practices
The first adaptation measure needs to tackle human threats to forests’ resilience by promoting
connectivity between forests and by reducing sources of fragmentation (including roads) which
encourage the spread of exotic species while hampering the colonization process of forest
species in their migration toward higher latitudes.
It is also very important to move the management at larger biogeographic scales, enlarge
protected areas along a north south gradient and design them based on projections of species’
shifts. This could be done combining biogeographic model such as the Holdridge Life Zone
Classification model with GCMs.
Because species are expected to shift northward, not only the effort should be toward facilitating
the migration, but also toward the intensification of protection over northern areas where the
tree species are supposed to move. Thus, the strategy should aim at protecting the migration
route as well as the final destination. This is not dissimilar from the strategy of protection for
migratory species, where the migratory habitats are the main focus of conservation.
21
3.3 Alpine/Montane ecosystems
Montane habitats, along with arctic ones, are the most vulnerable to climate change. In ECA the
areas occupied by montane priority areas will experience both an increase in temperature and a
sharp decrease in frost days (Climate Science section).
While with most of the other ecoregions we expect a shift in latitude, warming in montane
ecosystems will cause an “upslope altitudinal migration of climatic belts” and therefore a loss of
the nival zones at the summit of the mountains, along with their habitats and species (Price and
Neville 2003) . This phenomenon is already observable all over the world, from the Italian Alps,
to the Urals to the Altai-Sayan Mountains. In mountains-chains like the Urals the process may
take longer; due to its north-south geographical orientation species may find refugia for a longer
time in the northernmost areas.
Similarly to what has been described for other ecosystems, the adaptation strategy for montane
habitats should aim at protecting the final relocation area of montane species, while facilitating
their migration:
1. Facilitating the migration of flora and fauna by reducing the impacts of stresses other than
CC (e.g. habitat destruction and fragmentation), and by protecting corridors (BOX 4) to
allow species to shift.
2. Establish protected areas and/or reserves with some level of protection at the summit of
mountains. The identification of the area should be based on specific knowledge of the local
biodiversity dispersal capabilities, local weather variability and soil composition, as these
are the factors that will affect the community composition and spatial distribution.
In the Urals the main threats to address include clear-cutting of old-growth forests, mining,
agriculture and pasture, air pollution and tourism. However, the threats are not equally
distributed along the chain. While the mountain tundra seems to have been degraded all across
the ecoregion (apart from a few protected areas), the “northern taiga is still relatively well
preserved”( http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial_pa.html). This suggests
that conservation efforts should be directed to this area.
The threats in other priority montane ecoregions range from hunting and poaching to logging,
overgrazing and mining activities. In the Altai-Sayan and Khangai mountains these pressures
are direct result of the ever-increasing human presence and development. In the Carpathians,
poaching and air and water pollution are the main issues, along with logging for ski resorts and
building of hydroelectric dams. Minimizing these threats will require the involvement and
collaboration between governments, NGOs and technical experts; it must also be kept in mind
that due to cumulative effects activities that were previously sustainable may be not optimal
once the effect of climatic changes is factored in.
The active protection of habitats and species needs the creation of conservation nets composed
of protected areas, buffer zones, protected corridors and stepping stones (BOX 4). In order to
choose the necessary corridors, it is important to single out the ecosystems and species that are
considered most sensitive to climate change to understand their ecology and dispersal
mechanisms (Price and Neville 2003). Moreover, to ensure proper connection the conservation
22
networks should be recognized by different neighboring countries so that they can cross political
boundaries. In fact it is often the case that mountain ranges at risk are at the border between two
or more countries; for instance the Altai-Sayan montane environments are shared by Russia,
Mongolia and Kazakhstan; the Carpathians span across Romania, Ukraine, Slovakia, Check
Republic and Poland. Integrated with the conservation areas, an active system must be set up for
the management of invasive species, to prevent any new introduction and ensure early detection
and containment of infestations.
In order for conservation efforts to work, it is critical to involve the local people. Particularly in
developing countries, people living in montane areas are among the poorest (on a national scale)
and conservation goals can be attained only if local livelihoods are improved and dependence on
natural resources is reduced. Options include investing in small business and infrastructures
(e.g. microhydro schemes) in collaboration with NGOs, education and training for new skills
and financial support (Price and Neville 2003).
3.4 Arctic ecosystems
The arctic priority areas face enormous threats from climate change. These environments host
few species adapted to conditions that are projected to change radically; in fact these are the
areas where average temperatures and heatwaves will rise the most (see Climate Science
Section). Warming will likely push some polar species to extinction while changing species
composition, species sizes and possibly modifying migratory routes of some birds, which will
make it more difficult to establish protected areas for their breeding grounds. The landscape will
be modified greatly by changes in hydrology as a result of permafrost melting, reduction in ice
cover and the likely lessening of seasonal run-off variations9 (Rosentrater and Ogden 2003).
Given the scale and the magnitude of projected climatic impacts over the arctic, the only
adaptation strategy is to protect the resilience of the system, its natural autonomous adaptation
capacity. This, as in the case of the other ecoregions, is done by tackling the stresses that are
currently affecting arctic biodiversity. Pollution is one of the major problems. It originates from
shipping traffic (oil spills, accidents, chemical), mining, oil and gas development. Also
persistent organic pollutants (POPs), heavy metals (mercury, lead, cadmium) and radionuclides
are widespread. The city of Norilsk is one of the major sources of sulfur in the world because of
its nickel smelters plants. Sulfur dioxide has already destroyed a vast part of the forests in the
Taimyr and central Siberian tundra one of the WWF priority areas (NationalGeographic 2001).
The Lena river delta, one of WWF freshwater priority areas, is partially protected but the delta is
threatened by mining activities, forestry and agriculture development (WWF 2008). This is even
more of concern as permafrost melting in combination with sea level rise is projected to increase
coastal erosion. The developed areas around the Lena wetlands represent a barrier to species
9
Run-off will be probably driven more by rainfall (projected to increase) and less by the current
massive spring melts, because of the reduction in snow and ice cover.
23
migration, and they may also cause a coastal squeeze by which wetlands will be impeded to
retreat in the face of sea level rise.
Overall, the warming will favor an increase of human activities in the Arctic Circle (ACIA
2005). On land, conditions may be more favorable for people to move north, while the reduced
ice cover over the arctic sea will likely increase the shipping traffic, fisheries opportunities and
the exploitation of oil and gas reserves. This poses new environmental threats that must be
addressed now (Rosentrater and Ogden 2003).
A potential solution is offered by the Conservation First principle outlined by WWF, and
designed to balance industrial development with conservation of natural resources. The main
aspect is that, especially for the arctic, identification and designation of protected areas should
come before any major industrial plan is put forward. This is part of a broad ecosystem
approach that aims at:
1. Conserving natural resources and services so that they can be the base for long-term
sustainable development
2. Protection of key species, habitats and services that have regional and global benefits.
3. Identifying and solve possible conflicts between stakeholders in the conservation and
development field before major investments are put forward. This is very good business
practice and protects investors and all the different stakeholders
3.5 Freshwater areas
Freshwater ecosystems (rivers, lakes and wetlands) form a network collecting and distributing
precipitations from and to the surrounding land areas. Because of the physical connection, the
system is sensitive to changes in water temperature, volume, seasonal flow and quality, and
events triggered high up in the network can have a strong impact on wetlands and other habitats
lying downstream (Combes 2003).
As a result, climatic changes shifting the distribution and intensity of precipitations, are
expected to have a far-reaching effect on freshwater areas. Precipitations are generally expected
to increase over the river basins of the Volga and Lena rivers, whereas a decrease in
precipitation is projected for the Danube basin and over the freshwater systems in Turkey and in
the Balkans (Figure 6). Changes in hydrology are major variables, as they modify the
distribution and availability of refugia and breeding habitats among others, therefore impacting
indirectly the life cycles of land and freshwater organisms. In the Arctic a complex combination
of factors is going to affect freshwater systems. The thawing of the permafrost10, in combination
with sea level rise, storms and sea-ice reduction, and with rising river discharge due to increased
precipitations, may have a major erosive impact on the Lena delta and other deltas; the
sediments budget11 is the other factor that will affect whether or not the wetland habitats will
have the possibility to retreat fast enough to avoid submersion (Combes 2003).
10
Which causes subsidence
The amount of sediments transported to the sea and influenced both by human activities and by volume and
strength of river flow.
11
24
Wetlands may face arid conditions in some regions of ECA, and flooding in others. Droughts
cause more fragmentation, while flooding may provide connectivity but when too extended can
destroy the vegetation and also bring more sediments and pollutants.
It is also clear that climate-driven changes will be superimposed on a range of other stressors
that are currently affecting the freshwater systems of ECA, therefore making it difficult to
predict with precision the final magnitude of the impacts.
The most common impacts on freshwater ecosystems and their biodiversity derive from physical
changes through alterations of the hydrology due to dams, water abstraction for agricultural,
industrial and urban uses, and filling or draining of habitats. Direct impacts on biodiversity
come also from pollution (industrial toxic compounds, fertilizers, pesticides), overexploitation
and introduction of exotic species. The Delta of the Lena river is the biggest protected area in
Russia (WWF 2008). Despite the expansion of the reserve to 61.000 km2 in 1995, several
activities are threatening the ecosystem. Mining, forestry, and agriculture, which lead to water
diversion and run-off of pesticides and fertilizers, are threatening its wetlands, a very important
refuge and nesting ground for several migratory bird species. Overfishing is also a concern, as
the productive wetlands and the rich habitat formed by thousands of channels and streams
sustain abundant fish populations and marine mammals.
Similar issues are marring the delta of the river Volga. The delta covers an area of 86.000 Km2,
and it is a designated Wetland of International importance as it provides habitat for many
migratory birds, four sturgeon species and other migratory fish (NationalGeographic 2001).
Dams and water abstraction for agricultural and industrial uses have already altered the natural
flow regime of the river, while also obstructing the upstream migratory path of the sturgeon.
Pollution from these activities is another major threat and it has lead to an increase in
eutrophication and algal blooms in the north of the Caspian Sea.
Climate change may exacerbate not only hydrological stresses, but also pollution events. It is
known that rainstorms following prolonged periods of drought often cause a flush of
concentrated chemicals, nutrients and sediments. Also, aquatic organisms are going to be
affected directly by the changes in water temperature; differences in thermal tolerance may
change the species composition of the communities; some species will be forced to migrate but
in some cases they will be prevented to do so, in particular in isolated environments like small
lakes, rivers with a East-West course rather than North-South, and in areas where dam and
levees will obstruct their path.
In general for freshwater systems the uncertainty of the CC predictions has to be combined with
the uncertainty coming from the synergy between physical and biological variables. Once again,
the best adaptation strategy is reinforcing resilience and resistance by protecting habitats and
biodiversity and minimizing outside stresses. The highest priorities are:
1. Preserve older or isolated habitats with high structural heterogeneity, which are more likely
to contain high biodiversity
2. Protect the highest variety of potential habitats
3. Select also ecosystem at low biodiversity but delivering important ecosystem services
4. Protect water flow and hydrological characteristics
25
5. Protect habitat connectivity between rivers, lakes and wetlands, but also along rivers and
with cool thermal refugia (protecting current available connectivity).
6. Control spread of exotic species
The necessity of maintaining connectivity while at the same time controlling the spread of
exotic species will be a challenge. Solutions will need to be studied case by case, based on the
perceived danger that exotics pose.
The best chance to obtain these results is through a watershed scale management of water
resources. In particular, the approach of Integrated River Basin Management would allow to
protect and allocate water use between different stakeholders (which is the goal of Integrate
water resources management, IWRM12), while also planning for flood management and
protection of freshwater habitats and biodiversity.
12
Integrated water resources management
26
Figure 6. Freshwater areas across ECA provide critical habitats for migratory
birds. Particularly important are the wetland sites in the Black Sea (Danube,
Dniepr, Dniester and Russia), in the Caspian (Volga delta) and in the Arctic.
27
4. Conclusion – Challenges for adaptive capacity in ECA
The level of resources available to address each of the components outlined in table 1 gives a
measure of the adaptive capacity. In ECA, more efforts will need to be directed to changing the
decline in institutional and financial support for biodiversity protection that followed the
collapse of the Soviet Union. “The countries of ECA contain about 22 percent of the world’s
protected areas” with good networks in every subregion (Brylski and Abdulin 2003); although
several countries have a good tradition in terms of conservation and management of protected
areas, the deterioration of the support system during the first years of the transition hit both the
ex soviet republics and the countries under the sphere of influence of the USSR. As a result
there is too much variability in the value of protected areas for biodiversity conservation, and
many strong differences in the quality of management. Furthermore, some areas are to small or
lack clear boundaries to actually contribute effectively, while others are just “paper parks”
mainly used for recreational purposes and with little real protection. In addition, the financial
problems mentioned above cause shortage of staff and lack of infrastructures, with a consequent
lack of conservation management plans (Brylski and Abdulin 2003).
In addition poverty and the break down of law and order increased the pressure on natural
resources through over harvesting and poaching, pollution and unregulated development; illegal
coastal development linked to the tourism industry is threatening coastal habitats in the Baltics
and Poland, Albania, Bulgaria. In the last few years the situation has improved in Russia, mostly
thanks to the involvement of local populations in sustainable management practices, while in the
Caucasus an effort is under way to extend the network of protected areas and to link them
through corridors (Brylski and Abdulin 2003).
28
5. References
ACIA. 2005. Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Alcamo, J., J.M. Moreno, B. Novaky, M. Bindi, R. Corobov, R.J.N. Devoy, C. Giannakopoulos,
E. Martin, J.E. Olesen and A. Shvidenko. 2007. "Europe." in Climate Change 2007:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. M.L. Parry,
O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, 541-580.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Araujo, Miguel B. and Carsten Rahbek. 2006. "How does climate change affect biodiversity?"
Science 313: 1396-1397.
Biringer, Jennifer. 2003. "Forest ecosystems threatened by climate change: Promoting long-term
forest resilience." in Buying Time: A user's manual for building resistance and resilience
to climate change in natural systems, ed. L.J. Hansen, J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffman,
Berlin, Germany: WWF.
Brylski, Phillip and Stephanie Abdulin. 2003. Biodiversity Strategy for the Europe and Central
Asia region. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Combes, Stacey. 2003. "Protecting freshwater ecosystems in the face of global climate change."
in Buying Time: A user's manual for building resistance and resilience to climate change
in natural systems, ed. L.J. Hansen, J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffman, Berlin, Germany:
WWF.
Cruz, R.V., H. Harasawa, M. Lal, S. Wu, Y. Anokhin, B. Punsalmaa, Y. Honda, M. Jafari, C. Li
and N. Huu Ninh. 2007. "Asia." in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P.
Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, 469-506. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
European_Commission. 2005. Nature 2000 - Europe's Nature for you. Luxembourg
Gelbard, Jonathan L. 2003. "Grasslands at a crossroads: protecting and enhancing resilience to
climate change." in Buying Time: A user's manual for building resistance and resilience
to climate change in natural systems, ed. L.J. Hansen, J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffman,
Berlin, Germany: WWF.
Hannah, L., G.F. Midgley, T. Lovejoy, W.J. Bond, M. Bush, J. C. Lovett, D. Scott and F. I.
Woodward. 2002. "Conservation of biodiversity in a changing climate." Conservation
Biology 16 (1): 264-268.
Hannah, Lee. 2007a. "Protected areas in a changing climate." Front Ecol Environ 5 (3): 131138.
SAMPAA. 2007b. Available at www.sampaa.org/PDF/ch3/3.3.pdf (accessed 2008).
Myers, Norman, Russell A. Mittermeier, Cristina G. Mittermeier, Gustavo A.B. da Fonseca and
Jennifer Kent. 2000. "Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities." Nature 403:
853-858.
National Geographic Society. 2001. Available at
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/pa/pa1107.html
(accessed 2008).
29
Olson, David M. and Eric Dinerstein. 2002. "The Global 200: priority ecoregions for global
conservation." Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 89: 199-224.
Price, Martin F. and Graham R. Neville. 2003. "Designing strategies to increase the resilience of
alpine/montane systems to climate change." in Buying Time: A user's manual for
building resistance and resilience to climate change in natural systems, ed. L.J. Hansen,
J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffman, Berlin, Germany: WWF.
Reid, Hannah. 2006. "Climate change and Biodiversity in Europe." Conservation and Society 4
(1): 84-101.
Rosentrater, Lynn and Aynslie E. Ogden. 2003. "Building resilience in arctic ecosystems." in
Buying Time: A user's manual for building resistance and resilience to climate change in
natural systems, ed. L.J. Hansen, J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffman, Berlin, Germany:
WWF.
Spittlehouse, David L. and Robert B. Stewart. 2003. "Adaptation to climate change in forest
management." BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 4 (1): 1-11.
World Wildlife Fund. 2008. Available at
http://www.panda.com.br/about_wwf/where_we_work/ecoregions/lena_river_delta.cfm
(accessed 2008).
30